Defining and Questioning

As I was reading Asen and Brouwer’s Introduction, I found much of the information to be new (to me) and fascinating. I especially appreciated some of the definitions included in the text:

Counterpublic spheres (Felski): “critical oppositional forces that seek to disrupt the homogenizing and universalizing processes of a global mass-communication culture that promotes an uncritical consumerism” (p. 7).

Counterpublics (Fraser): “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests and needs” (p. 7).

Public: “may indicate something potentially open to all (as in the bourgeois public sphere), potentially concerning all (as in matters of public interest), potentially known to all (as in public information), potentially constituted by all (as in the general public), and potential movemet toward all (as in attempts to publicize matters)” (p. 9).

Public Discourse (Benhabib): “consists of challenging and redefining established notions of the common good” (p. 10).

Public Sphere (Schudson): includes “a set of activities that constitute a democratic society’s self-reflection and self-governance” (p. 15).

International public sphere (global public sphere/cosmopolitan public sphere/cosmopolitan democracy): “a forum wherein vastly dispersed individuals of a multitude of ranks, roles, and races might come together for deliberation” (p. 23).

Also, because some of the information is outdated, I began considering how the internet (or NCTs) has dramatically changed the public sphere. After reading Asen and Brouwer’s piece, I seemed to come away with more questions than anything else (which is why I especially valued the definitions above!). Here are several (straight from the text) that would be interesting to explore:
1. “How large and dispersed can a population be and still resemble an enduring ‘community?’” (p. 23).
2. “To what extent can communication technologies facilitate such a community?” (p. 23).

Susan Blackmore on memes and "temes" | Video on TED.com

Susan Blackmore on memes and "temes" | Video on TED.com

"We take our point of departure from the objective fact that human acts have consequences upon others, that some of these consequence are perceived, and that their perception leads to subsequent effort to control action so as to secure some consequences and avoid others"(Dewey, 1927).

"The moment we utter the words 'The State,' a score of intellectual ghosts rise to obscure our vision. Without our intention and without our notice, the notion of the "The State" draws us imperceptibly into consideration of the logical relationship of various ideas to one another, and away from facts of human activity" (Dewey, 1927).

Pragmatism seems to be beyond both a priori and a posteriori reasoning, though it also seems to be the next logical step from the Scottish and English Enlightenment, which influenced American Modernism and valued empirical reasoning. This seems to be why John Dewey is so focused on finding the public by moving from consequence to cause. His idea is that all social action has a cause. Find that cause and we will find the public. It is empirical and inductive reasoning. Record the most observable object and trace it to its natural origin.

I wonder though what Dewey say of the public, community, the social, and the state in a User-Generated World. Dewey suggests that ideas filter through the public and influence the meta structure of the community. Its metadata if you will. These ideas become instituionalized and determine action. For instance, red means stop. These ideas that become part of our metadata are often referred as memes. These our ideas that become part of genetic community. Memes is ofcourse a play on the work genes. The video above refers to something called temes. Temes are memes but with technology infused. Some refer to them as internet memes.